Wednesday, July 27, 2005

Lance Armstrong: Surgery Survivor

Am I the only one who is confused about the whole Lance Armstrong as Cancer Hero storyline? From all the literature I have read as an adult male between the ages of 20 and 34 who is conscientious about his health and well-being, balls cancer is highly treatable and often does not even affect the sufferer's ability to reproduce. I'm not asking for balls cancer or wishing it upon anyone. Make no mistake: balls cancer is no joke. But if it's so easily treatable with limited post-op complications, where is the heroism and triumphant will? That he won so much races is impressive, and that he was able to pull his shit together enough to say "Hey, so what if I only have one ball? I'm going to get a specially-constructed one-ball bike that accommodates my disability and I'm going to ride," when so many others would simply hang up their gay little bicycle cap...that's certainly something to see as inspirational. But I'm not buying this whole "Lance Armstrong triumphantly beat cancer through sheer will and then went on to..." NO! Here is how the media should be reporting this story: "Lance Armstrong triumphantly had his ball removed by surgeons!"

4 Comments:

brother #3116 said...

The reason that the Lance Armstrong balls cancer survival story is billed as one of triumph against all odds is that by the time he was diagnosed, the cancer had already metastasized to several important organs, to wit his brain, lungs, and stomach. Perhaps his survival isn't heroic (no doubt he was pivileged to have better medical care than most), but he is lucky enough to have his luck considered newsworthy.